The Classical Phalanx - over-arm or underarm?

[Jubal]

LET THE GREAT ARGUMENT BEGIN!

Some starting matter:

Underhand grip and side-facing stance has certainly been argued for in actual academic texts I've read (which I will try to dig out at some point! I'm honestly not sure what I think currently...

What do you all think?

[Bercor]

Ok, first thing first, we need to clarify the definitions from the beginning. What do you mean by underarm? This:

Spoiler

Or this:

Spoiler

?
Because, I've seen people refering to the latter as over-arm, while other, when saying over-arm, are talking about this:

Spoiler

Now, I'm not an expert in ancient greek warfare, neither did I read a lot of books about this matter, so my opinion is built only in what I think makes most sense and, therefore, I don't hold to it like the ultimate truth about hoplite warfare.

First of all, let's note that the great majority of the mods use the over-arm (I'm talking about the one showed in the third picture). This is probably due to the fact that Europa Barbarorum's team decided for it in their mod. Seeing as they're considered the Holy Bible of historicity, it's only natural that the other modders followed their steps. From what I understand, Europa Barborum's team decision was largely due to Peter Connolly's studies, in which he concluded that an over-arm thrust is stronger than an underarm one. Recently, Storm of Spears, a Christopher Matthew's book, was published, in which tha author apparently (never read it) disproves Connoly's theories and reachs the conclusion that the overhand position was only used to throw the spear and that the underarm thrust it's more powerful than the over-arm counterpart.

Personally, I think that this "which thrust is stronger" discussion is silly. The ancient greeks did not had the current machinery that allow us to conclude that the x thrust it's N stronger than y. Probably, they thought: "Oh well, it seems that this thrust is slightly better than the other". My point being that the peak force of the thrust was not the most important thing an hoplite had in mind in the hour to choose his stance.

This leads us to the question: "What's the most important thing to bear in mind when you're choosing your position?". I would say: "Survivability", in other words, the stance that gives you more chances of surviving. That's why I think the over-arm grip was mainly used, because it allowed you to stay in formation, with your shield interlapped with the man in your side, thus boosting your chance of survival, while you can't do this using the underarm grip without hurting the man behind you. Now, that's not to say that the underarm stance was never used, I'm sure with was used many times, but, while staying in formation, I believe the overarm grip ruled.

[Jubal]

I believe most current studies suggest that hoplites didn't fight anything like that closely ranked as a matter of course, though; the phalanx for the Spartans or Athenians probably wasn't really nearly that much of a crushed shieldwall. (Mausolos would be a good person to ask on this matter I suspect)

I tend to go with the first video I posted; anything where the thumb faces forwards is an underarm, thumb back is overarm (underhand and overhand would be more accurate terms).

[comrade_general]

With the way the shields were supposed to lock together in formation the only possible way was overhand. When not in formation underhand could be used but I would guess because of the extremely large shield that overhand would probably still be used more.

[Bercor]

Well, it depends of the time, really. In the Hellenistic era, the classical hoplite formula was outdated, and, therefore, more loosened formations were developed. The hoplites were no longer the main line, but had the job of flanking the enemy, while the phanlanx pinned them down. This type of warfare required lighter armour and a looser formation, resulting in the Ekdromoi. The classical phalanx, from the Peloponesian War, for example, was a pretty closely ranked formation, though, similar to this:

Spoiler

[Silver Wolf]

From entirely different perspective, I believe that overhand makes more sense since it's more aggressive style and has a better grip and more force behind it (try it yourself, you'll see).

However, I believe that they switched it depending on circumstances. In the chaos of battle no one gives a rat's ass about how you hold your spear as long as you're not in the way. That Tactical Errors guys explained that part with formations pretty well.
On the other hand, underhand grip kind of allows you to hide a bigger portion of your body behind a shield, while still being able to stab someone on the side (accompanied by lowering the spear to mid-waist position).

[Jubal]

Some stuff at the end of this is an interesting counter to the tactical errors video; apparently the armour doesn't actually restrict movement up to shoulder height.

[Bercor]

Yeah, the heavy bronze cuirasses that the white hair guy refers to in the second video were completely outdated in the Hellenistic period. Almost no one used it. So, that "restric movement" argument doesn't quite hold up.

[Clockwork]

Just to say that I have tried it and I was much more comfortable, could get more power and had better control with an underarm thrust in the form of Bercor's second picture.

EDIT: With the overarm thrust there you're trying to hold a shield up while making a movement with your body and weapon arm which counteracts that which is why I prefer underarm.

[Jubal]

Brief testing indicates that I probably agree with Rob, but I don't have a shield or cuirass and I was using a staff rather than a spear so jury out until I can find better kit I think.

[Pentagathus]

Well, not sure what the greeks did but I'd merrily phalanx you all day long, over or underarm. 

[Bercor]

The problem with that stance it's that it's nigh impossible to stay in formation while using it, without stabbing the face of the guy behind you. But I agree with you, an underarm thrust feels more confortable and stronger than an overarm, though, neither of us have any experience of fighting with hoplite gear.

[Jubal]

Surely overarm would have issues too, particularly ensuring that you didn't stab someone behind when you pulled the spear backwards/if someone knocked your spear sideways?

[Bercor]

True, but with overarm you have the possibility of pointing the spear more towards the ground, making that the opposite point would be over that man's head, the one that is behind you, when you pulled it backwards. Like this:

Spoiler

[Clockwork]

Both have their flaws imo. The downwards thrust surely would be easily blocked with shield or greaves and if aimed at head or neck then with the angle and position along the shaft you'd have to hold the spear, it'd just be more effective to use even a simple club then a spear? But I can see how fighting overarm in formation would be more of a hassle, plus it's a killer on your wrist, even with all the ahem... exercise I get.